I wasn't trying to be funny, and I'm glad you got the point.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7192/protectny0.jpg

Students bringing multiple firearms into school is a fairly recent phenomenon isn't it?

You should throw in some C4, just in case the home invasion turns for the worse; that way, you could level the place and no one gets anything. Kinda like a self-destruct sequence. But seriously, how shitty is your pistol and shotgun that you'd need something else against home invaders? Or do you have poor aim? Or by multiple home invaders do you mean that army of zombies? Is this a paranoia thing?

Statistically speaking, BOTH are totally safe considering that home invasions in Illinois, your home state, are at an all time low... 19 total in 2006 out of a population of what, like 12 million?

That means you have a 1 in 630,000 chance. Statistically you're more likely to be hit by lighting.

C4 is a cutting charge due to high det velocity. You'd want to use TNT, Baraka. It pushes more and is better for leveling a house. And it's much cheaper to procure.

I'm going to try to phrase this in the least confrontational way possible. Let's see if it works.

I strikes me as an observer that Americans seem to be some of the most fearful and paranoid people in the developed world (so much for non-confrontational). I don't have a weapon that I carry in public in case of attack. I do not have a home defence strategy (I suppose, if it came to it, I could swing my bass guitar at an intruder; that sucker's heavy). When I lay me down to sleep at night, the last thing on my mind is what I intend to do in the event of a home invasion. Baraka_Guru, a fellow Canadian, believes that anyone who feels the need to possess more than one firearm is being unreasonably paranoid. And we're not alone up here; the only Canadian owned firearms I have ever encountered in my 24 years riding this rock around the sun were exclusively for use in hunting. We're talking bolt-action long guns totally unsuited to any other application. You want to defend your home with one of these bad boys, you damn well better get them on the first shot.

I can count on one hand the number of murders I've encountered that were closer to me than a newspaper page. Three of the four just happened to occur in the same town as me, in towns where such events were rare enough to be remarkable. The fourth was a friend of a friend. Firearms were not involved in any of the four.

I'm not passing judgment on the right to keep and bear arms. That's a decision that you all as a nation have made, and it's your right to run your country in the manner of your choosing. If you support it, more power to you. But I can't help but wonder. The United States of America is a nation founded in violence. The founders felt the need to protect the nation and it's people because they were dealing with personal experience; they'd just come out of a bloody rebellion with what they deemed an oppressive government and they were understandably paranoid that the same thing might one day happen again. The effectiveness of small arms against fighter/bombers and main battle tanks notwithstanding, what is the real probability that the general population of the United States of America will need to rebel against it's government in the near (or even distant) future?

Again, not passing judgment. The answer to that question is entirely a matter of opinion.

There has not been, to my knowledge, a single Canadian Prime Minister ever assassinated by use of a rifle or any other means. The worst our nation's leaders have to worry about are pies and pushy reporters. So far as I'm aware, England can make a similar claim, although I'm not familiar enough with English history to assert that with any real confidence. And while random shootings do occur throughout the rest of the world, they do seem to be much more prevalent in the United States of America. Initially I thought it might be population, but other equally of more populated nations don't seem to suffer the same problems.

None of this provides a solution, or even a clear argument really. I just sit and I wonder. How much of the fear comes from the very right that's meant to keep you safe? If everyone has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, how much more do you feel you have to defend yourself against all the other people who potentially exercise that right? And how much does having a culture in which firearms play such a prominent role encourage these sorts of tragic events?

Unfortunately, I don't have any answers. The only thing I'm really good at is asking more questions.

Martin, can you rephrase that to "SOME Americans"? I can't stand guns and think the idea of defending yourself with a gun is an excuse, not a reason.

*gives WillRavel a Uzi, a S&W 686, and a Mossberg 590*

Ssssh, you're just like the rest of us.

Funny, some people call those things "sniper rifles." Guys like Carlos Hathcock sent plenty of souls to hell with the exact same kinda rifle.

...

A scoped bolt action rifle is many times more dangerous than a handgun.

No, it isn't. In my day, it wasn't unusual to have your hunting rifle or shotgun in the trunk of your car to go hunting after class. What is new about it is that now they are being used against other people.......perhaps because these shooters now know that there aren't any weapons in trunks?

To those that look at the statistics and odds of anything violent ever happening to them as being so miniscule so as to not bother being prepared for it to happen, so accepting that if it ever should, just lay down and die, I have to ask you....how much do you value your life?

give me a .308 with a scope, any target within 800 yards is live or die, my choice. :thumbsup:

The 80s? :confused:

I doubt it has to do with their perceptions of who may or may not have weapons. Clearly, in this day, just about anyone could have a handgun in America. But what I was getting at was that it is new that these shooters are now bringing the guns into the schools and, yes, using them against other people.

I have far more important things to worry about than dying from a gunshot wound. I tend to focus more of my time being a safe driver and pedestrian, maintaining my non-smoker status, exercising, eating a balanced diet, using common sense when doing something potentially dangerous, and generally being kind to others.

In answer, I don't see it worth going through the trouble and expense of having a firearm in my home, knowing how to use it safely, and knowing how to take care of it. If someone wants to bust in and take my shit, then fine. I don't want to kill anyone over that. If they want to do worse, well, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Adrenaline can do crazy things when used properly.

I think Martian helps keep perspective. You need to know where we Canadians are coming from. Maybe since we're so socialist we don't have as many social ills and dangers such as violence and crime. Maybe it's because of our social makeup in general. I don't know. I've said this before: If I told my family and friends I was getting a firearm for home safety purposes, they'd think I was nuts. I'd barely be able to get them to support my getting a rifle for hunting.


* * * * *

Martian, thanks for your insights.

I'm sorry, that was my mistake actually. Seriously. What this does to me is demonstrates the point; murder is so far out of my head that I don't even think of it as a valid application for a firearm. My thoughts are hunting/sporting, home defence, personal defence. A scoped .30-06 is great for one of these activities, and arguably pretty lousy for the other two.

Any gun is dangerous. A little .22 handgun can kill a man just as sure as a big badass Barrett rifle firing .50 BMG can. All the same, some are better suited for different applications. I don't use a claw hammer to knock dents out of sheet metal, and I don't use a ball-peen to nail two by fours together.

That's not really a valid argument. For one, nobody said anything about 'lay down and die.' In the unlikely event that an intruder breaks into my home or a stranger mugs me when I'm out on the town and in the even more unlikely event that my attacker is satisfied with nothing less than the end of my life, I'll fight back with everything I have. However, feeling that I need to live in fear of this unlikely circumstance is, to me, a bit absurd. That's my personal opinion and it's very clear to me that you feel quite differently on the matter.

I don't let the fear of lightning stop me from going outside, even when it's raining. The fear of being struck by a runaway driver doesn't stop me from crossing the street. I face death on an everyday basis, as do we all. Preparing for one scenario simply because it's 'scarier' and with no regard to the actual probability of that scenario coming to pass doesn't make sense to me. And feeling the need to purchase and keep multiple firearms to safeguard against that unlikely scenario is so alien to me that I don't even know what to make of it. This is my opinion as a Canadian and I suspect it's an opinion shared by a great many of my countrymen. I will not attack your belief in your right to keep and bear arms. That's for you guys as a nation to decide and I don't pretend to know what's best for 300 million people better than they do. I just thought it might be insightful for some of you if I shared my observations as an outsider. And that's really all there is here.

I value my life enough to live it without unreasonable fears. I don't wake up clutching my gun. I don't walk around with a gas mask on worried about Sars. I don't avoid things that pose me virtually no danger.

Having been shot (how many times have you been shot, dk?), I know it's not really something to live in constant fear of. So long as it doesn't hit a major artery or a major organ, you'll probably be fine.

Quite frankly, it's a lot like being hit in the face the first time. You're scared of it before it happens because you don't know what to expect. When it does happen it hurts... but you survive and suddenly it's not this big monster in your closet. It went through my calf and I drove myself to the hospital. They stitched it up, I limped for a few days and now there's barely even a scar. So does that mean that I went out and spend thousands of dollars on tons of guns to defend myself? Shit no. I'm fine. When you combine the FACT that you're likely to never be home invaded with the FACT that things like security doors and dead bolts can prevent someone from getting in your house, you finally come the to understanding that the menace is a phantom. It's not any more real than the boogeyman or WMDs in Iraq.

Carrrying a gun as a self defense tool does not equal living in fear. If it were that way, what does that say about every policeman out there?

Yes because you get the gist of it threw thew interweb and the press.


Ditto.

Me either, but thats just stupid on both our parts. Nothing wrong with being prepared.

Nor I. It used to be will the wife put out, now its will the kid sleep through the night. Home invasion rates would also most likely go up with a lack of firemarms, if for example we followed the pattern seen in england where the gun ban had lead to a rise in violent crimes and thefts.

Only guns outside of those on the police and some other security personal people I've encountered were hunting/target rifles.


I'd rather have a bolt action gun than a knife in a fight.

Thats 4 more than me. No one I know even remotely has been murdered. Kinda funny that you mentioned the lack of fire arms, I wonder if that is comfort to the victims.

People look at their lives when its 'good' and think that it will always be good. Its funny you mention English history, which has had more then its share of assassinations and political murders, just not recently. Governments can change, democracies can become dictatorships in the span of a few years, and I'm willing to live with the extra 'danger' (which I'm not sure is so extra, my chance of being murdered as a middle class white male are about the same as my European counterparts) to maintain an armed populous.

I'd also add that were Canada to become a superpower you would see a change in how things work rather quickly. It was less than two lifetimes ago that the president could walk in the open shaking hands.

Apples and oranges. The police are empowered by the people to uphold the law. This is a profession which puts them in a position where they're far more likely to face violence. Having the proper tools to counteract that threat is an essential part of their trade.

Anyone who has ever watched COPS should know that the police enter into high-risk and potentially dangerous situations on a daily basis. Their job is to confront felons. Felons can be far more dangerous than the general population. That the officers of the law have a firearm strapped to their hip acts as a deterrent and also provides them with the means to apply necessary force in the unlikely and unhappy circumstance when it is called for.

I, on the other hand, do not confront felons as part of my job. I do not intentionally put myself in potentially life-threatening situations to uphold the values of the society of which I am a part. I have no need for a weapon.

Cops carry guns because the likelihood of them needing to have and use a gun is relatively high when compared with the rest of us. Frankly, I'd be happier if they didn't have to, but one could argue that if they didn't their role would be redundant anyway.

Are you actively seeking out violent criminals? No? That's because you're not a policeman.

And I totally didn't see there was a second page all ready, good going me.

To steal from one of the most poorly thought out movies:
"Guns don't kill people, but they sure help."

Like Crompsin said, it would escalate from pillows, to nerf bats, to napalm, to the latest fashion craze: strapping homemade bombs to your chest. I hear it's all the rage in the Middle East.

Tomorrow it will be a bigger bomb. Tomorrow it can kill more people. Tomorrow it will be just the last day of lectures. "School's out for-ever!" Pay close attention today, because I am only going to do this once. Class dismissed.

Are you really purporting that we have more crazy people shooting up buildings with guns because there are less people carrying guns in their trunks?

Uh, no, dude. Obviously this problem has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with the impact of stressors in our society. Crazy doesn't do gun control, dude. Crazy obviously doesn't care if it dies. Crazy usually takes itself out in case you haven't noticed. Fear of sane people with guns is for the sane.

I'm not contesting that. As I said, these are simply my observations. I don't think every American is a gun-toting cowboy, but I have noticed there seems to be a large (or at least highly vocal) segment of the American public who advocate guns as personal defence tools. This segment is largely absent in many other populations, including Canada's. That's more what I was trying to highlight.

I don't consider it stupid. There are all kinds of unlikely events that I'm completely unprepared for. Should I be more concerned about this one because teevee tells me to be?

This is not necessarily a case of black and white. There's all kinds of middle ground between 'everybody can have a gun' and 'nobody can have a gun.'

Also not contested. My point was more that the only people I know here who even have firearms buy firearms whose intended purpose is as far away from home defence as it's possible to be.

I did mention that my knowledge of English history is somewhat lacking. I could well be wrong. I also disregarded any assassinations carried out before the advent and widespread acceptance of firearms, as they're not really relevant to the discussion.

I think one could argue that while you may not feel the need to possess a firearm yourself, you seem more than happy to use the fear generated by them to your advantage. My argument isn't really rooted in violent crime statistics. Actually, to be totally honest I don't really have an argument. These posts are the forum equivalent of thinking out loud, just some musings on the subject. Regardless, I do still wonder if a society that was created by a rifle doesn't implicitly encourage it's use. Would these shooters have been shooters if they'd been a different nationality? That question, of course, is impossible to answer.

I enjoy the direction this took: from Crazies with guns blowing away people in classes, to the students carrying guns to protect themselves from the crazies, to why have guns to protect ourselves in the first place. //sarcastic//

Granted I can't say anything since a conversation with me has [less than] a 15 minute window of distinct information relating to the topic till I get bored and wander to the next [logical] topic.

and non-policemen DON'T face violence at all?

no, i don't actively seek out violent criminals, but those violent criminals certainly seek out you and I as everyday citizens, don't they?

then explain why all these mass killings happen in 'gun free zones'? you don't see any mass killings at gun shows or gun stores. Does it mean that gun control laws are responsible? indirectly, yes they are. they ensure an unarmed pool of targets until an armed person shows up, which is usually when the crazed gunman then takes his own life.

Apparently not, according to reliable and verifiable statistics.

They're paid to step into violence. Citizens are not.

Unfortunately yes they do, but statistically, you are safe-ish.

There can still be mass killings in a gun show. Armed or unarmed targets is up the crazy shooter.

I am not against guns. I am against people going crazy.

Are you under the impression that America has been a society always existing with a plethora of guns always in sight and that is the reason that nuts haven't been on the loose shooting people? I could ask my parents. My mother was born in 1939, my dad in 1930. Do you suppose if I asked them, they would claim that guns are less existent in their lives now than they were growing up? I think not.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't be hearing all the cries for stricter gun laws when one of these oh so rare occurrences happen, would we?

which is it? are random acts of violence so rare that nobody needs a handgun for defense, or are they becoming so much more common that people start wondering if everyone has gone mad?

Does that mean that we should not step in to violence if another citizen is being assaulted?

statistics don't mean crap when it's you that becomes the victim.

mass killings happen because none of the victims have a means of defense. They don't happen in gun shows because the people in there have a ready means of equal firepower to defend themselves, limiting any carnage and murder.

Am I under the impression there were more guns? no, nor did I say that there were. What i said was that back then, people weren't restricted in the places where they could carry guns for protection as compared to now. THAT is why nutcases have an easier time of shooting people.

I think you've demonstrated time and time again that one occurrence is enough to outrage some people.
Most people aren't aware of how rarely they need a gun, which explains the gun owners and explains all the anti-gun people. Gun owners respond to sensationalized media by arming themselves for combat, and anti-gun people respond by saying that we need to stop criminals from getting guns. I personally believe that the latter is more prudent and reasonable, simply because removing guns/making it difficult for criminals and emotionally unstable people stands a chance of actually stopping the few crimes that do happen.

The only cries for stricter gun laws that I have heard recently are not for new restrictions, but rather the need to recognize that the current federal (and state) laws that already prohibit the sales of guns to persons with medical histories of mental illness are not working......both the Virginia Tech and NIU shooter, who were able to walk into gun shops and walk out "armed and dangerous", are graphic examples. I recall a fairly recent FBI report (if I can find it) that noted about 1,000 homicides/year by persons with mental illnesses....most dont make the news.

The conundrum is these same persons have a right to privacy with regard to medical records.

I dont know how you resolve that.

dk...do you have a problem with that current provision of gun laws? Should persons with medical histories of mental illness have a right to bear arms?

fixed that for ya!

I don't think it can be fixed. There is no possible way to prevent any and all private sales, so people with adjudicated cases of 'no guns for you' are still going to be able to acquire them.

should they be allowed to defend themselves at all?

Think it would be funny if I started wearing bull's eye shirts to class?

Sure, they are still able to acquire guns....if they know where or from whom. Thats for more difficult than walking into a gun shop.

I would weigh the need for personal defense against the potential threat to oneself (suicide) and or the public at large...and come out on the side of the threat being greater.

I don't think the other students would understand your humor.

Did you read my post?

If they know they are going to be denied at a gun shop, it's far easier for them to buy one off the street, which isn't that hard to do.


cool, who gets to decide who's rights are important and who's rights are not so important?

yeah, i read it. i could also say that most people aren't aware of how rarely they need a seatbelt or a fire extinguisher also. not many people are truly aware of how rarely they need any tool or device, that is until they actually need it. by then, it's almost always too late.

Do you really believe that most middle class, twentysomething white guys who are off their medication know where to buy a gun off the street?

Maybe in Texas.

Federal and state laws have already decided, with overwhelming bi-partisan public support (including most of the gun lobby).....minors, convicted felons, persons with medical histories of mental illness.

I'm really glad you brought this up, because it allows me the opportunity to compare gun stats to car accident stats and home fire stats. Do you want me to do that again? As I recall last time you ended up simply falling back to the "are you willing to bet your family's life on statistics?" argument. If I post the stats, will you respond like that again?

or new mexico, arizona, hell it's easier to get a gun off the street in california than it is in a gunshop there.


see, and here I thought that the constitution only gave government powers to run the country, not decide who gets rights and who doesn't. wow did we come a long ways.

pretty much, yes. because it's always going to be some person out there declaring that the odds of being a victim are infinitesimal, so you don't need a gun....but they are never there when someone is actually a victim. So pretty much, your quoting stats is an irrelevant waste of time because people still die.

That argument doesn't hold water unless you prepare for other unlikely dangers, too. Do you have a lightning rod? Do you wear a gas mask in public? Do you always wear gloves? Do you not eat red meat or spinach?

The fact that you only choose to be paranoid when it comes to guns overrides your excuse that you don't want to be a statistic. Either you believe in statistics or you don't. Picking and choosing makes no sense whatsoever.

But will, you also pick and choose and have declared so on this very thread. so you make no sense either?

While not "an irrelevant waste of time," I feel the same way.

The excuse: "Oh, I only have a 0.04% chance of getting hit by a distracted, cellphone-blabbing driver in a zillion-pound SUV while crossing the street today." doesn't do jack diddly-shit once you're one of 0.04% that gets hit and ends up in the hospital with cast on your arms, legs, and love muscle. Turns out insurance companies still charge the same whether you're a Mr. Cocky McFuckypants or a realistic old hermit. Turns out to be a case of "last place ya looked" syndrome. Body massage - GO!

Hey, statistics are good for educational purposes, studies, and being snarky... but shouldn't be something on which you bet your life.

Pfft... I sure don't. Turns out I like this life thing lots.

That and... I'm not a genius.

...

Then again, I have my concealed carry permit and rarely carry when I'm by myself out 'n about. I almost always carry when I'm out on dates. Bodyguard syndrome?